Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Because if it's talking about universal grammar it's not psychology, it's philosophy.

nope

its saying there is a functional difference between human and nonhuman cognition, and putting forth a model it thinks can help explain both why this currently happens and how this might have plausibly evolved

so it pokes holes in the idea that there is a continuum between humans and animal intelligence at the present time. while also saying "but naturally, humans must have evolved from animals along a continuum even though there is a difference now, the question is how?"

so you can see why saying "darwin's mistake" is just basically title trolling. he doesn't really say anything against darwin.

the whole thing is written incredibly vaguely though, it took me a very long time and a lot of study to be able to sum it out to you so easily.

Morninglord on March 2010

(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.

Man, after seeing some of the stuff that came out of MIX the Windows 7 phone is like a developers dream platform when it comes to mobile. From an app developers point of view, it is just so damn far ahead of the iPhone.

*sigh* if only that mean it actually had a decent shot in the market.

Look is there an App for it? Because the tv says there are apps for things and that makes them better.

The main reason I have been getting interested in Win7 Mobile is that, as an app development point of view, it is so cool (I am generally so not into fancy phones). It has the technologicial potential to do things that the iPhone cannot. Especially when it comes to games and video.

I think apple really made a mistake with their No Flash policy. Not because Flash is good, but because they did not offer an alternative* (as Microsoft is doing with Silverlight) that allows for a good streaming media story outside of their crap ass iTunes.

* And HTML5 is not looking very promising to be that alternative. For one, it isn't ready yet. And for another there is a big rift over what kind of videos the <video> tag will support and how. If the standards people can't fix this soon then the only logical conclusion from a business point of view will be to keep using Flash (or Silverlight) rather than HTML5 for video.

in fact it's so badly written in terms of a psychology paper, which is supposed to be something an amateur can pick up and get an idea of, that i ended up writing a big argument against what i thought the guy was proposing that turned out to be in favour of what he is proposing.

and it turns out what i thought was him being a philosophy twit and talking about silly ontological terms that can't be falsified as just him being unnecessarily verbose.

which is why im so frustrated. if this paper was written well, i wouldn't have wasted my time trying to figure out what the hell this guy is trying to say.

Morninglord on March 2010

(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.

0

FeralＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤalong with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered Userregular

Because if it's talking about universal grammar it's not psychology, it's philosophy.

nope

its saying there is a functional difference between human and nonhuman cognition, and putting forth a model it thinks can help explain both why this currently happens and how this might have plausibly evolved

so it pokes holes in the idea that there is a continuum between humans and animal intelligence at the present time. while also saying "but naturally, humans must have evolved from animals along a continuum even though there is a difference now, the question is how?"

so you can see why saying "darwin's mistake" is just basically title trolling. he doesn't really say anything against darwin.

the whole thing is written incredibly vaguely though, it took me a very long time and a lot of study to be able to sum it out to you so easily.

So if you're describing it as "model" I assume they have some solid evidence to that effect, with specific examples of human reasoning that animals appear to be incapable of?

Guys, I had an idea on the way back from Boston. It has to do with the existence of the afterlife.

First, do you ever feel that you seem to experience your life from the future? That the existence of these experiences are dependent on you remembering them later on? Take this for example:

There are two people in a bedroom. One person (A) is awake and the other is asleep (B). Person B wakes up partially and begins a conversation with person A. After the conversation Person B returns to sleep and because they were not fully awake they do not remember this happening and from their perspective they never experienced it. If you don't remember it then you never experience it. This can be illustrated with a diagram which begins with the person's perceptual beginning (in this case waking up) and then moves onto the person perceiving an experience. Then it forks into either the death of the experience or the experience is saved and remembered. In the former the death of the experience causes the destruction of the perception of the experience as well so it never happened.

Now apply this to something besides a sleepy conversation. You are born, which is the beginning of your perception, and then you perceive the multitude of experiences that one has in the course of their life. If you die and there is nothing afterwards then these experiences would be destroyed and you would not experience them as you did not experience the sleepy conversation. But obviously we do experience these things and we remember them, and we would have to remember them after the experiences ended so then there should be an afterlife.

This was just an idea that popped into my head that is based on how I personally sometimes perceive time and experience and I am pretty sure I'm not explaining it well and I am certain it is grossly flawed so I wanted to post it here to see what others thought of it.

Guys, I had an idea on the way back from Boston. It has to do with the existence of the afterlife.

First, do you ever feel that you seem to experience your life from the future? That the existence of these experiences are dependent on you remembering them later on? Take this for example:

There are two people in a bedroom. One person (A) is awake and the other is asleep (B). Person B wakes up partially and begins a conversation with person A. After the conversation Person B returns to sleep and because they were not fully awake they do not remember this happening and from their perspective they never experienced it. If you don't remember it then you never experience it. This can be illustrated with a diagram which begins with the person's perceptual beginning (in this case waking up) and then moves onto the person perceiving an experience. Then it forks into either the death of the experience or the experience is saved and remembered. In the former the death of the experience causes the destruction of the perception of the experience as well so it never happened.

Now apply this to something besides a sleepy conversation. You are born, which is the beginning of your perception, and then you perceive the multitude of experiences that one has in the course of their life. If you die and there is nothing afterwards then these experiences would be destroyed and you would not experience them as you did not experience the sleepy conversation. But obviously we do experience these things and we remember them, and we would have to remember them after the experiences ended so then there should be an afterlife.

This was just an idea that popped into my head that is based on how I personally sometimes perceive time and experience and I am pretty sure I'm not explaining it well and I am certain it is grossly flawed so I wanted to post it here to see what others thought of it.

Morninglord: How could you possibly defend that paper though? There is very little archeologicial evidense on the subject what what little there is seems (from everything I have read) to show no discontinuities. There are times when the pace of change seems to be very slow (almost none for hundreds of thousands of years) and times when the pace of change seems to be very fast but not a discontinuity. Just a faster pace.

Course it's damn hard to infer anything about psychology from the subset of tools that survive plus the few intact skulls that show some impressions of what the brain was like.

But again, the evidense that I have seen related to his case seems to be either non-existant or against him.